Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Cancer Researcher
Field: Oncology, Cancer Research
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner met this criterion as he has served as a judge for the work of others in his field.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner has authored numerous scholarly articles, contributing to the academic and research community in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner’s awards were not sufficiently documented to demonstrate their recognition or the rigorous selection criteria behind them.
Original contributions of major significance:
The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions had a major impact on the field of cancer research.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments:
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to prove that his roles in various hospitals and institutions were leading or critical in nature.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner cited several awards, including the 2007 Science and Technology Progress Award from China’s Ministry of Education, but failed to demonstrate their significance or rigorous selection criteria.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner has published 65 articles, with a total of 385 citations. However, the citation rate did not sufficiently establish major significance in comparison to other researchers in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner made several claims about the significance of his research, the supporting evidence largely consisted of speculative letters and general statements rather than concrete examples of widespread impact or application.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a judge of others’ work, fulfilling one of the evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
This criterion was not sufficiently addressed in the petition or appeal.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner has authored a substantial number of scholarly articles, meeting the criterion for authorship in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner held several roles, such as deputy director and associate chief doctor, but did not provide sufficient evidence to prove these were leading or critical roles at distinguished organizations.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner attempted to claim this criterion during the appeal, but it was not considered as it was not initially claimed or documented.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided letters of support, awards, publication lists, and citations. Each piece of evidence was evaluated, but the documentation did not collectively support the claims to the extent required for the extraordinary ability classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability.
- The provided evidence did not establish the necessary level of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the top of the field.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider gathering additional, more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability and recognition.
- Consulting with an immigration attorney to better document and present qualifications could improve future petitions.
